Should we cut off aid to Pakistan?

[El Supremo]

Poll question: Should we cut off aid to Pakistan?

I mean, 5 or 6 years in that compound and not even the meter reader suspected anything?

[Vincardog]

1. We should continue to give them economic and food aid. No more military money or arms.

[El Supremo]

2. Nah.

Then we would be giving India a military advantage. India is the only other country that Pakistan threatens.

[AnOhioan]

5. Yeah better we sell arms to both India and Pakistan....double win

It is all about profit for the defense manufacturers.

[Vehl]

6. well

right now Pakistan is woefully disadvantaged against India when it comes to military power anyways...their "only" trump card is that they have nukes, as do India and China.

Us should realize that fighter jets and submarines bought by Pakistan using Aid money is NOT going to aid fight terror.

[fujiyama]

7. What's wrong with giving India the military advantage?

I don't see them proliferating nuclear weapons and sponsoring international terrorism.

[Curmudgeoness]

3. Yes, I think that it is time for us to help friends, and discontinue help

to those who are not our friends. Not only has Pakistan harbored OBL for years right under their nose, but they are now threatening us and criticizing us for doing what they refused to do. No embarrassment on their part, no apology for being so incompetent, just threats. Sorry, but these people are not our friends, and it is apparent that we can't even buy their friendship. That money can be used for something positive.

[damntexdem]

4. Other: first cut it off to Israel.

Then start thinking about Pakistan.

[fujiyama]

10. Has Israel harbored terrorists against us?

I'm not arguing against cutting off aid to Israel, but some of that aid is also used in joint projects I believe.

I don't understand why Israel even comes up in a discussion over Pakistan.

[fujiyama]

8. I say let it rot

No aid. Nothing. No food. No medical. Nothing at all.

Any country that sponsors terrorism, proliferates nuclear weapons, and is unstable as fuck and unwilling to admit it deserves nothing. Let the country reassess its own fucking priorities and once its willing to join the civilized world, maybe we should consider the basics. I know that sounds cold, but their ideology is too. Any country that spends money on nukes but can't find a way to handle floods is fucking incompetent and so corrupt that it can't be trusted.

There hasn't been even the slightest bit of accountability over the last ten years with aid to them. I want to know where my fucking tax dollars are going!

[EC]

9. That's a hard one.

They have nukes.

[quiller4]

11. How about an option "Hell NO" ?

Pakistan is a struggling democracy. There are elements in the military that are not trustworthy and the elected government walks a careful tightrope to keep the military happy enough that it doesn't launch another coup but we have and need continued use of Pakistani air space and permission to transport material to Afghanistan through Pakistan.

[Ikonoklast]

12. If you actually think Pakistan is a democracy...

No one gets elected, or governs after an election without the sanction of the military.

Pakistan is a police state that has democratic elections just like the former Soviet Union had democratic elections.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. only if America intends to completely get out of the super-power business altogether

If the U.S. intends to totally withdrawal from Afghanistan, reduce or eliminate its presence in the Gulf and Asia to minimal levels and become just another country on the world stage - with a role no more significant then say Canada or Norway - then U.S. policy would probably not need to be providing massive military aid to Pakistan and countless other questionable regimes around the world.

On the other hand if the U.S. wishes to remain the word's leading super-power or even a major player - say to the level of France, Great Britain or China - The simple reality is that there is no choice but to continue military aid to a lot of sultry governments all over the world - especially Pakistan given it close proximity to the Persian Gulf, its border with not only Afghanistan but Iran, China and the now independent former South Asia Soviet Republics and its central locations and political position in Asia.

It would be naivete to the extreme to imagine that the U.S. does not need Pakistan - if it wishes to continue the role as a super power. In fact if the U.S. wishes to remain a super power in Asia and the Middle East - The U.S. needs Pakistan a lot more than Pakistan needs the U.S.

If however, the U.S. wishes to become just another country on the world stage as advocated by some like Ron Paul or probably Dennis Kucinich - that is another matter.

[bigwillq]

14. Yes (nt)

[karynnj]

15. It would be incredibly stupid - and would advantage those in Pakistan AGAINST us and hurt the

fragile government that may be the best we can get.

I have watched all the SFRC hearings on Pakistan since 2005 and from that my opinion is that there are three powers in Pakistan - the government, the military and the ISI (the intelligence agency). The government does NOT seem to have the ultimate power over the latter two as would be supposed for most countries. ISI has been complicit in setting up the Taliban and is linked to many terrorist organizations.

The country until a few years ago was a military dictatorship under Musharaf.

The President of Pakistan, Zadari, is a democratically elected leader and the husband of Benazir Butto, who was murdered by AlQaeda. Before she was murdered, she had complained to the US government that the Musaraf government and the military were not giving her the security she needed. Though Zadari has flaws, he might be the best we could hope for now. If there is a better leader, it is to be hoped that he would win election.

Consider who would be hurt and who would be helped by withdrawing NON-MILITARY aid. My guess is that it would advantage the military, which angrily FOUGHT the Kerry/Lugar aid as one provision was an increased move to Democracy and a demand that the military has to answer to the civilian government. This comes from what I read the Pakistani and Indian accounts (in English obviously) when Senator Kerry and later Hillary Clinton went to Pakistan after Kerry/Lugar/Berman was passed. It would also weaken Zadari's government.

This would make it more likely that we end up with a military dictatorship and/or a government run by Redical Islamist possibly associated with the ISI.

[Vehl]

18. contrary to popular belief, the Military and the ISI are one and the same..in fact ISI is a branch

of the military. Probably one of the best propaganda successes Pakistan has had in this regard is to make people believe that the ISI and the Military are different entities. This cannot be further from the truth.

ISI is a joint forces department of Pakistani military (all the important officers are from army), somewhat similar to DIA in structure but with powers and influence comparable to what CIA+DIA+NSA enjoys.

The ISI officers are regular Paskistani Army officers transferred over to ISI from the Army. Most serve short terms and are transferred back.

the current army chief, Gen Ashfaq kiyani was director general of ISI right around the time OBL is supposed to have taken sanctuary in that compound, during gen pervez musharraf's reign.

If one realizes that the current head of Military was also the ex-head of the ISI, it becomes clear that there is no such "split" between the ISI and the Army as the Pakistani government would have us to believe. In fact its well known from the wikileaks that even America knows this to be the case, and also is aware how much the Army/ISI actively aid and abet the Taliban/AQ.

There have been many instances in Afghanistan where NATO forces exchange fire/kill what they presumed to be Taliban/AQ only to realize that the targets/opponents were ISI working with the Taliban. Of course..the ARMY/ISI automatically term them "rouge operators" and are not affiliated with Pakistan.


I have no problem with America giving Pakistan Aid, however I do have a problem with America giving Pakistan Military aid..doubly so after the recent revelations. Its obvious that Pakistan has been playing America for suckers..and to continue Military aid would be the highest form of folly and would make the US the butt of jokes in every Pakistani MIlitary/ISI camp.


Furthermore, lets look at the military aid America has been giving Pakistan the past 10 years in order to "fight the terrorists"



Upgraded f-16s. = so the Pakistan Airforce can shoot down Taliban fighter jets :)
Amraam and Tow missiles = to shoot down Taliban fighter jets and Main battle Tanks
Latest Air defense radars = Again to shoot down Taliban/AQ fighter jets and maybe glider borne taliban invaders?
maritime recon and strike aircraft = to find and destroy Taliban Navy
an Oliver Hazzard Perry class destroyer - to check the Taliban Navy in the Indian ocean


I guess its obvious that all this equipment has been clearly selected to be effective against the Taliban/AQ only! and not against India! ;)

The President of Pakistan, Zadari, is a democratically elected leader and the husband of Benazir Butto, who was murdered by AlQaeda. Before she was murdered, she had complained to the US government that the Musaraf government and the military were not giving her the security she needed. Though Zadari has flaws, he might be the best we could hope for now. If there is a better leader, it is to be hoped that he would win election.

I have two questions

What makes you sure that Benazir was killed by the Taliban/AQ alone? Seems like the ISI/military colluded with the Taliban/AQ by removing her security knowing full well by doing so it would sign her death warrant.

Do you really think Zardari would have come to power if the Army/ISI did not approve?

[pauldp]

20. good post except for...

"Its obvious that Pakistan has been playing America for suckers.."

Do you really think the CIA didn't know about ISI funding of Taliban/AQ?

[Vehl]

23. they know

But apparently they did not know to what extent the rot runs till they found Osama in the Pakistani West Point.

But even now I bet publicly they might not take much action..given that Pakistan is a walking bomb...or to use a better terminology..a dead-man's switch which cannot be released once pressed. The switch got pressed when America turned a blind eye in the 80s to the Pakistani acquisition of nukes (just so that they would support the anti-Soviet action in Afghanistan)...and now they cant let go of it because if they do..the country will collapse and the very nukes America enabled Pakistan to have would fall into the hands of the very people America raised to fight the Soviets. How ironic. One would laugh at how things turned out if not for the fact that millions of people's lives are on the line..given that the nukes might fall into fundie hands.

[karynnj]

21. What then is your solution - for the US to walk away

leaving a nuclear armed country that could go to people who are worse?

At any rate there is a SFRC at 10am tomorrow where questions likely will be asked.

[Vehl]

24. Us Cannot walk away

to do so would result in the collapse of the facade of the civilian government in short order. But there will be a catch. Whom do you think would be the head of the new power block that would rise out of the flames? I can bet that chances are that it will be headed by the current head of the military(who is also the ex head of the ISI) is very high.


I'm sure that you are aware that those who make it to the top leadership positions in the ISI/pak Army are survivors of a very brutal Darwinian form of evolution where the losers lose more than their job..often their lives. Its logical to assume that anyone who made it to the top of the ISI/Army are the ones who knew every dirty trick..every skeleton in the closet..and every conspiracy out there. When and If Pakistan collapses as a nation(god forbid!) these people would simply float to the top position in the resulting regime...they have every resource the civilian government does not have.


What the US can do is to stop giving Pakistan military aid which has Nothing whatsoever to do with their "fight against terror". If they want military aid..give them something that can be only used against the Taliban/AQ...not fighter jets and Destroyers which have zero utility against Taliban but will only be used against India. Furthermore, stop propping up dictators like Musharraf. You do know where the Billions in his bank balance by the time he left Pakistan came from..didn't you? Would it not have bought much needed goodwill from the people of Pakistan if that money was actually spent for humanitarian aid...flood relief..and such?

Musharraf(and every other successive strongman) who comes to power in Pakistan basically blackmails America into spending tens of Billions...out of which nothing makes it to the average Pakistani. Zardari...for all his "civilian" status would not even have made it to the president post had the ISI/Army disapproved. If one "really" thinks that the ISI/Army let him be cos he was "elected" by the people...one is really buying into the ISI/Army propaganda.the ONLY way Zardari stays in power is that he agreed to be an ISI/Army pupped through and through. Otherwise there would have been some convenient 'accident" like the one his wife had...courtesy of the ISI/Army

America is in the un-enviable position of not being able to let go of the tiger's tail it has gotten hold of..even if it wanted to..cos the moment it lets it go..the tiger will turn around and bite it(in the form of nukes). So it has to bear with all the scratches in the meantime and hold onto the tail.

Blame the extremely short sighted American politicians who used/use the ISI/Army to create the Taliban/AQ to fight the Soviets. That's the main problem plaguing America...the lack of foresight...Arrogance played/s a part here too..the CIA/American politicians probably thought they can "handle" Pakistan and the taliban they helped create. They are reaping the results today.

[karynnj]

31. Agree - and that in far more detail - more than I knew - is the point

I was trying to make. The alternative is worse.

[Thrill]

16. I think you really have to worry

about them letting their nuclear weapons get in the wrong hands. Can't cut them off completely. How scary was it that Bin Laden was that close to those weapons?

[Sheepshank]

17. Light has finally been shed on their two faced politics

Providing aid and safe harbor to this terrorist, while talking up their anti terrorist stance, has been exposed. Providing safe harbor may have be cause for occupation (Afghanistan for instance). Best we let them disappear into obscurity, withdraw completely from them. The world is already giving them the cold shoulder.

[pauldp]

19. How long do you think the CIA knew about their "two faced politics"?

Months? Years? Decades?

[Sheepshank]

27. I can only go on personal opinion here...no facts to back it up

but I'd say it has been years, and I'm hoping the USA has simply been using this knowledge for their own purposes and are not done using them too.

[woo me with science]

22. Recommending for an important and complicated question.

[MasonJar]

25. Pakistan is a nuclear state. We cannot afford to let it become a radical Muslim center.

[Justpat]

26. That would be hell yeah. n/t

[Fire1]

28. No reservation whatsoever!! YES!!! n/t

[RoadRage]

29. Yes. We have enough problems here to deal with...

Pakistan wants to let Obama live in a Mansion and neighbor up with the Military? That's cool. But, they can figure out how to pay for themselves as well... harboring a guy who killed 3,000 taxpayers who are sending money over to Pakistan is a bit too much to ask for IMO.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. Given that we jumped in there without notifying them

and could've caused an international incident- especially if the mission ended up failing- we might just want to call it even right now and evaluate our ongoing support of them based on how they respond in the future. If they have anybody else we're after that they're knowingly providing sanctuary to, they ought to cough them up ASAP- so as to demonstrate their good faith. :shrug:

[mdmc]

32. attempted rec for "how the hell should I know"

I voted yes cause I'm a liberal - hearts and minds kinda guy..